The use of adhesive pads as part of a security mount to hold protected articles to a surface such as a desk is a well-developed art. Gassaway U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,850,392 and 4,634,009 are examples of such art.
Further developments in this field have related to means by which the mount holds a protected article to itself. In the early years of this art, there were only a few basic shapes and sizes of articles on the market which justified the cost of a security mount, and it was economical to manufacture mounts for use with specific products. However, any uniformity of dimensions of structures between goods of various manufacturers, and even between various products of the same manufacturer, is a thing of the past.
Also, as the computer art has progressed, the prices of comparable goods have steadily fallen. The same security mount which would have been demanded for a $25,000.00 computer may be a questionable cost to protect a $2,000.00 computer. In view of the likelihood that a given computer may be outdated in a relatively short time, manufacturing or purchasing a costly security mount that is useful for only one product becomes a one-shot expense which is often difficult to justify.
When computers were first brought into open offices and schools, their high cost and uniqueness justified, at least to purchasing agents, security mounts which had but one application, and which were extremely difficult to remove. Marring of desk and table surfaces by drilling holes through them was even tolerated. The Gassaway concept of an adhesive pad eliminated that nuisance, and remains a preferred technique. It has become even more attractive with the development of a means to remove the pad from the surface after a permitted release of the article from the mount.
The earlier mounts were installed by a technician. The expenses of a technician became part of the cost of the article, and was recognized as such.
Before the new technique for removing the pad was developed, the pad could only be released by the use of heat. Again a technician would show up with a heat gun in his hand and proceed to heat the pad until it could be peeled off. This often left a residue on the desk or table, and if it did not char or otherwise mar the surface, it at least worried the owner. Then the mount itself had to be reconditioned. That often meant the removal of the pad from an intermediate metal plate. This became another cost, and sometimes a new intermediate plate was required. After that, the technician would re-install the mount.
Accordingly, this type of security mount soon became regarded as a permanent installation often dedicated to a single product model, and its disadvantages were accepted. However, with the proliferation of new products with different sizes and shapes, and the frequent need to set up the article in a new location, permanence, or near permanence became worse than a nuisance. The situation calls not only for a mount which can accommodate a wide range of articles, but one which can be moved without calling on the services of a technician, and without substantial reconditioning expense.
The situation has become further impacted by considerations of varying levels of security. Total security can be obtained without the use of security mounts by an absolute control over access to the area where the protected article is used. Such installations exist, and are not a significant market for hold-down devices for the reason that they are not needed. Instead, the problem is in dispersed and more open locations, where they often are loosely supervised by day, and are usually unsupervised at night, except by local police and security patrols.
This circumstance raises the issue of affordable, or even attainable, levels of security. Unless the value of the article is so great as to justify full-time area security (in which it is likely to be so bulky as hardly to be transportable by a thief), security is required only as against casual theft, or theft which can be done so quickly as to evade the more routine protections such as police patrols and intrusion alarms.
Casual theft can readily be attended to merely by making the act of removal an obvious thing. This is enough to deter the casual thief. The more professional thief will generally be deterred by a system which gives him less than five minutes to enter the area, detach the article, and get away. If a thief can be assured of more than five minutes, he can remove the article at what is to him leisure, and can use a strong tool system to do it, destroying whatever holds the article to its support.
In view of the rapid developments in this field, there is a need for a security mount which has the following features:
1. It is adhesively mountable to a support by a pad which itself is releasable, without leaving a residue, and is readily replaced by a new pad which is modestly priced. PA1 2. It should be installed, removed, refitted with a new pad and re-installed all without requiring a technician's services, thereby reducing the cost of the mount as installed. PA1 3. Its pad is provided with joinder means that can releasably receive a rigid base. This base is releasable only when there is no protected article in place. PA1 4. Its base must provide retention means to retain a protected article against vertical removal, against horizontal removal, and against any combination of them. PA1 5. Its retention means must be adjustable so as to embrace at least two corners and one opposite edge of an article, and to be fixed in an adjusted position respective to the article being protected, so as to be receptive to articles within a wide range of shapes and dimensions. PA1 6. Its retention means must be able to release the article at the edge so as to enable the removal of the article from the mount by a key-lock arrangement. PA1 7. Adjustability of the means for vertical restraint must be resistant to removal or release. For adjustment in the horizontal plane, it must be shielded from unauthorized access.
This invention provides all of the foregoing advantages.